First, as Elmer overshared with San Antonio Express-News Staff Writer Josh Baugh in a story Sunday, the group is retaliating against the council's decision in 2011 to offer benefits to domestic partners of city employees. Or, as the group's Facebook page puts it: “San Antonio City Council Object of Wrath for Allowing Homosexual Benefits.”

“There's almost no other stimulus,” Elmer told me. “We are Bible believers.”

The problem: District 5 Councilman David Medina, one of the group's targets, is a Christian who voted against the budget that extended the benefits. (Soules and Chan also voted against it.)

Another problem: The group's stated mission is to attack “progressive candidates, officeholders and political action committees who have long been contributing to the runaway growth of government.” Yet by requiring a state agency to investigate hundreds of complaints, isn't the group encouraging government bloat?

“I like your question,” Elmer said. “As far as we're concerned, the TEC is an investigatory body; so we have a positive inclination toward ...”

He paused, sensing his own spin.

“They help us achieve our own objectives,” Elmer said, “so we don't have a bone to pick with the size of the organization.”

So refreshing, all this honesty! But about those “objectives,” I still didn't understand the group's attack on Medina.

Elmer said the PAC members — about a dozen — felt obligated to report Medina's infractions because they're so glaring. Yet as Baugh reported, some of the allegations levied against Chan and Soules' colleagues easily could apply to the two North Side council members.

For instance, the PAC hit Bernal, Taylor and Castro for failing to “fully disclose the name” of “K.P. Ganeshappa.” Yet Chan accepted campaign funds from the same person and reported them in the same way.

“I'll have to ask that from my godfather, who is the central figure doing these complaints,” Elmer responded.

“The group was started to expose public corruption, which cuts across all lines, whether you're conservative, liberal,” Jenkins told me.

That's the sort of old-school spin I'd expect to hear from an organization dedicated to destroying liberals. Nonetheless, Jenkins insisted that the finance reports of Chan and Soules were “really clean.” In fact, the PAC has generally found “far fewer problems with Republicans over Democrats.”

“I guess I don't know why,” said Jenkins, an avowed conservative and foe of marriage equality. “For whatever reason, it appears that Republicans don't have as many problems as the Democrats.”

So there you have it: Democrats are far more corrupt than Republicans. No ideological agenda here. (Pay no attention to Tom DeLay behind the curtain.)

Party affiliation “does not matter to me,” Jenkins said, yet “if you look around a bit, you can find their affiliation.”

I looked around a bit. It turns out Medina voted in Democratic primaries in 2008 and 2012, the sort of activity prone to attract a “pinprick.”